It's funny how you regard it as foolish to object to what you deem to be their hypothesis, yet you persist.

It would be foolish to take away from their data the notion that they believe that addiction doesn't exist, and/or that rehabilitation is unnecessary.

Similarly, it would be foolish to make an argument against the peer reviewed research science compiled by PhDs that holds consensus among the experts in the field, based on nothing but the wording of a document meant specifically for laymen.

But, if you explain it too simply you'll inevitably get somebody that took college chemistry and biology courses who picks apart the work of PhDs because it wasn't detailed enough for their understanding. - Me

I don't object to any hypothesis. I just don't agree with it. And I can't say I necessarily completely disagree with their hypothesis or research, but your interpretation of their results. You did not accept my notion that their results of chemical dependency was semantics and actually synonymous with "drug addiction." I believe drugs are addictive, and I believe that to be a fact born out by drug use creating addicts addicted to them. Drugs change brain chemistry, I suppose that is indeed brain damage, caused by the drug the user is addicted to.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and Addiction (NIDA), defines addiction in this way:

Addiction is defined as a chronic relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences. It is considered a brain disease because drugs change the brain – they change it’s structure and how it works. These brain changes can be long lasting, and can lead to the harmful behaviors seen in people who abuse drugs.

Draw your own conclusion of whether "drugs" are addictive. I agree with the interpretations here: http://www.thecleans...it-is-a-choice/. Though after becoming addicted it can be argued it's no longer a "choice."

Simply find a pool of individuals who never use drugs, one group with said brain damage. String them all out on heroin for 9 months, then take it away on day 91. Only the brain damage identified subjects should so symptoms of drug addiction/chemical dependency correct? Where is that study?

It's easy to blither on about how people should be able to put what they want into their bodies when you don't consider the side effects of habitual drug use.

People steal, fight, even kill to get their hands on their next fix. It can tear families apart and ruin lives, not just of the user but of others.

I work in a criminal law solicitors office and the vast majority of our clients are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs when they commit their crimes (especially in the case of dishonesty offences). One client became so dependant on alcohol that he lost his house, became homeless and had to turn to shoplifting to support his habit because he can't afford to buy alcohol. Similar stories could be told for a number of other drugs.

If we knew about alcohol what we know now, when it was first discovered, then it probably would've been a controlled drug as well.

But and here's the but in my opinion it is morally unjustifiable to dictate to people what they can and can't put in there bodies.

That is a completely different topic. If that is your point, then we have started a new conversation.

I happen to agree that you should be allowed to do what you want, unfortunately its those few that don't take responsibility for themselves that leads to the laws we have now to try and control and regulate so much of our life. The small percent that take things too far, hurt other people, or otherwise involve other people in their choices, is the reason why the laws exist in the first place.

Digging into the topic of what the government should be trying to control is a deep well and would get us so far off the topic of the thread

I don't object to any hypothesis. I just don't agree with it. And I can't say I necessarily completely disagree with their hypothesis or research, but your interpretation of their results. You did not accept my notion that their results of chemical dependency was semantics and actually synonymous with "drug addiction." I believe drugs are addictive, and I believe that to be a fact born out by drug use creating addicts addicted to them. Drugs change brain chemistry, I suppose that is indeed brain damage, caused by the drug the user is addicted to.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and Addiction (NIDA), defines addiction in this way:

Addiction is defined as a chronic relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences. It is considered a brain disease because drugs change the brain – they change it’s structure and how it works. These brain changes can be long lasting, and can lead to the harmful behaviors seen in people who abuse drugs.

Draw your own conclusion of whether "drugs" are addictive. I agree with the interpretations here: http://www.thecleans...it-is-a-choice/. Though after becoming addicted it can be argued it's no longer a "choice."

Simply find a pool of individuals who never use drugs, one group with said brain damage. String them all out on heroin for 9 months, then take it away on day 91. Only the brain damage identified subjects should so symptoms of drug addiction/chemical dependency correct? Where is that study?

I've made no interpretation, but rather just parroted the research. You don't disagree with me, you disagree with the current understanding of science.

Of course, using drugs is a choice. So is getting on a rollercoaster. Whether or not to become addicted though, or to have a heart attack because of a rollercoaster ride, mostly depends on your condition before you made that choice.

You trust the interpretations of this man...

Hi, I’m Steven Slate, the author of this site. As a person who once had a problem with substance use, I bring not only my current research into the recovery culture to the table, but also my personal experience. I went through 5 years of conventional treatment and 12 step group participation, without any long-term success.

Finally, I found successful long term change with the influence of The Saint Jude Program program developed by the Baldwin Research Institute.

Addiction is NOT a Brain Disease, It is a Choice.

And, I trust the scientific findings of the many research scientists that this man has compiled which say the opposite...

Dr. Erickson received his Ph.D. degree in pharmacology from Purdue University. He has held tenured teaching and research positions at The University of Kansas and The University of Texas since 1965. He presently is a distinguished Professor of Pharmacology, Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, and Director of the Addiction Science Research and Education Center in the College of Pharmacy at the University of Texas at Austin. He holds memberships in the Research Society on Alcoholism (RSA), the College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD), and the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ACNP). Dr. Erickson has published over 260 scientific and professional articles and his book "The Science of Addiction: From Neurobiology to Treatment", published by W.W. Norton, was recently released (2007). He serves as Associate Editor of the scientific journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research and is a regular contributor to the journal Addiction Professional.

People who experience dependence have a brain disease. Chemically-dependent people have a brain disease that goes beyond their use of drugs.

Most people (75-85%) can use cocaine or heroin for a while and stop using when they decide to stop. Others (“chemically dependent”) cannot stop without medical and structured therapy.

“Addiction” is a will-power problem: This is an old belief, probably based upon wanting to blame “addicts” for using drugs to excess. This myth is reinforced by the observation that most “treatments” for alcoholism and “addiction” are behavioral (talk) therapies (including Twelve Steps). But “addiction” occurs in a subconscious area of the brain that is not under conscious control, the mesolimbic dopamine system.

You're not taking issue with me, but rather peer reviewed scientific research as compiled by a well respected scientific institution in the field of Addiction Science and it's director.

As I said before, if you really disagree with them so much, maybe you should contact them.

I've made no interpretation, but rather just parroted the research. You don't disagree with me, you disagree with the current understanding of science.

Of course, using drugs is a choice. So is getting on a rollercoaster. Whether or not to become addicted though, or to have a heart attack because of a rollercoaster ride, mostly depends on your condition before you made that choice.

You trust the interpretations of this man...

And, I trust the scientific findings of the many research scientists that this man has compiled which say the opposite...

You're not taking issue with me, but rather peer reviewed scientific research as compiled by a well respected scientific institution in the field of Addiction Science and it's director.

As I said before, if you really disagree with them so much, maybe you should contact them.

You confuse hypothesis with finding of fact.

Do you know CPR used to be 5 compressions to 2 breaths, now it's what 20 compressions to 2 breaths and soon may not be any breaths and early "findings" that led to 5:2 were wrong. It's now more important to remove toxins from organs by compressing until emergency response arrives.

Directors get replace all the time, when their is a general consensus in the medical community, and that results in a change in how we dispense drugs, and treat drug use of narcotics, I'll re-evaluate my opinion of their hypothesis. But that won't happen without the human study I described previously.

IMO the only thing this study will do, and is probably intended to do, is push drug addiction to being classified as a disease so drug addicts will become a protected class. Meaning you can't fire them for being a crackhead, you have to give them treatment first. Like alcoholism, when it became classified as a "disease."

Do you know CPR used to be 5 compressions to 2 breaths, now it's what 20 compressions to 2 breaths and soon may not be any breaths and early "findings" that led to 5:2 were wrong. It's now more important to remove toxins from organs by compressing until emergency response arrives.

Directors get replace all the time, when their is a general consensus in the medical community, and that results in a change in how we dispense drugs, and treat drug use of narcotics, I'll re-evaluate my opinion of their hypothesis. But that won't happen without the human study I described previously.

IMO the only thing this study will do, and is probably intended to do, is push drug addiction to being classified as a disease so drug addicts will become a protected class. Meaning you can't fire them for being a crackhead, you have to give them treatment first. Like alcoholism, when it became classified as a "disease."

I disagree with your interpretation of unequivocal statements as mere hypothesis

Erm yeah its not the drug thats addictive its things you add to it like Tobacco or just the habit. If you are forced to buy from a shady dealer also and not a legal vendor (because its illegal most places) you might be buying something thats been coated in say a little coke to make you go back for more. Some dealers around where i live go as far as adding a few drops of nicotine per gram.

Psychological addiction affects the brain, which is part of the body. Therefore psychological addiction (or "mentally addicted" as you put it) is still technically a physical addiction. Many neurologists/psychologists think there should not be a line drawn between "psychological" and "physical" addiction.

Does your family's "official research" involve simply smoking weed and comparing experiences or are they scientists? "weed is a good thing" seems like a very stupid thing to say.

actual scientists... thats why I said official you know as in government approved and funded?

There seem to be quite a lot of confusion regarding psychological and physical addiction. The only difference between these two concepts are that a psychological addiction doesn't cause withdrawl symptoms; whereas physical addiction does.

Cannabis does not cause a physical addiction; but it can cause a psychological addiction, which can still pose a danger to the smoker.

A recent study published by a research assistant professor in the Feinberg School of Medicine revealed new evidence linking marijuana use with lower cognitive functioning and brain abnormalities similar to those seen in schizophrenia patients.

Matthew Smith, the lead author on the study, has been researching the relationship between schizophrenia and marijuana use for several years. In research published Dec. 16, he observed four groups of people, two sets of healthy individuals — with and without history of marijuana use — and two of individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia on the same classification.

Both the marijuana-using groups had regularly used the drug for three years and were then tested after being abstinent for the next two years.

Smith said those who used marijuana showed similar brain abnormalities, though one group was diagnosed with schizophrenia and the other was not.
"We’re not saying that marijuana causes this abnormality because in order to say that this causes it, we need data over time," Smith said. "Since we don’t have data before or after, we can only say these relationships are significant and linked."

The study also revealed a relationship between earlier marijuana use and greater brain abnormalities, but Smith said more data over time is necessary to prove this relationship.

Though other studies have shown the negative effects marijuana use has on the brain, Smith said his study was unique in its focus on working memory and specific brain abnormalities.
“This is one of the first studies to demonstrate a direct link between marijuana-related brain abnormalities and cognitive function,” Smith said.
Colorado recently legalized the use of marijuana, and Washington state is beginning to issue licenses to individuals to grow and distribute the drug this year.

Dan Linn, the executive director of the Illinois National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws, an organization aimed at promoting legislation geared toward legalizing marijuana, said the study will likely not have an affect on future legislation.

“There’s always been this link between cannabis and schizophrenia," Linn said. “I think lawmakers realize that even if this is a problematic substance, prohibiting and outlawing this substance outright for everyone is not a good policy.”

Frances Fu, the co-president of Students for Sustainable Drug Policy, said the study's results were ultimately positive because students need to know both the pros and cons of drug use. The organization encourages individuals to make informed decisions on drug use through promoting drug education and reform, the SESP junior said.

“Marijuana is glamorized because it is prohibited, and I don’t think there is enough education about the negative effects of marijuana that are honest and comprehensive,” Fu said.

Smith said more research is necessary to truly understand marijuana's influence on the brain. He said he plans to continue studying the relationship between brain abnormalities and marijuana use, focusing on the effects of abstinence and marijuana use over time.

“There’s a lot more that’s known about the effects of alcohol whereas we don’t know as much about the effects of marijuana,” Smith said. “We don’t really know what the long-term implications are. I think that more research is needed to really understand what’s going on.”

Cannabis use is associated with working memory (WM) impairments; however, the relationship between cannabis use and WM neural circuitry is unclear. We examined whether a cannabis use disorder (CUD) was associated with differences in brain morphology between control subjects with and without a CUD and between schizophrenia subjects with and without a CUD, and whether these differences related to WM and CUD history. Subjects group-matched on demographics included 44 healthy controls, 10 subjects with a CUD history, 28 schizophrenia subjects with no history of substance use disorders, and 15 schizophrenia subjects with a CUD history. Large-deformation high-dimensional brain mapping with magnetic resonance imaging was used to obtain surface-based representations of the striatum, globus pallidus, and thalamus, compared across groups, and correlated with WM and CUD history. Surface maps were generated to visualize morphological differences. There were significant cannabis-related parametric decreases in WM across groups. Similar cannabis-related shape differences were observed in the striatum, globus pallidus, and thalamus in controls and schizophrenia subjects. Cannabis-related striatal and thalamic shape differences correlated with poorer WM and younger age of CUD onset in both groups. Schizophrenia subjects demonstrated cannabis-related neuroanatomical differences that were consistent and exaggerated compared with cannabis-related differences found in controls. The cross-sectional results suggest that both CUD groups were characterized by WM deficits and subcortical neuroanatomical differences. Future longitudinal studies could help determine whether cannabis use contributes to these observed shape differences or whether they are biomarkers of a vulnerability to the effects of cannabis that predate its misuse.
>